The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

I was thinking about the maintenance issue. A backyard mechanic could take both tanks apart and put it back together. The T-34's only advantage is its slant armour design and gun. Otherwise, they're just cheap bastards to produce.

I think the Sherman got a bad rap. More Soviet tank crews died in T-34s than Allied crews in Shermans albeit due to Zukhov's ability to burn men and equipment to get what he wants. Then again, the same could be said about Patton.

I'm going to do some research on the Sherman, relative to other tanks. Everything that I can recall said that it's 2 advantages were it's numbers and mechanical reliabilty. Here is a link to a book review. The book was written by a guy who served in the ETO. I'd like to buy it because I saw the guy on some of the History Channels shows and I wanted to hear more from the guy than just their 15 seconds clips http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/184.asp

Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

Oh I have no beef with the Sherman taking on a Panzer III. I was thinking of them going up against the T-34's and the IS-x series. The only Sherman out there that had a decent gun was the Firefly and the US Army for whatever dumb reason wouldn't adopt it.

Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

The M4A3E8 had a high velocity 76mm gun that was actually pretty deadly against most tanks(even the best tanks on flank shots).

There were other Sherman's with the 76mm Hv, but the A3E8 was the only one with improved protection and the good gun.

The T-34 was pretty much an evolved copy of a US design anyway, lol. They flat out stole the torsion bar suspension of the T-34 from a US tank design, though i can't remember which one. Saw it on the history channel, but it was a while ago.

I think you are refering to the Christie suspension, invented by American Ralph Christie. Many Soviet tanks had this and I could be wrong, but I think Christie sold it to them after the US turned it down. (Your mileage may vary...)

Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

Originally posted by M21Sniper The M4A3E8 had a high velocity 76mm gun that was actually pretty deadly against most tanks(even the best tanks on flank shots).

There were other Sherman's with the 76mm Hv, but the A3E8 was the only one with improved protection and the good gun.

The T-34 was pretty much an evolved copy of a US design anyway, lol. They flat out stole the torsion bar suspension of the T-34 from a US tank design, though i can't remember which one. Saw it on the history channel, but it was a while ago.

I heard the suspension was rejected by the US military, so the guy who invented it sold it to the Soviets. My grandpa told me that yesterday.

I dont believe that America would have ever used the nuclear weapon during WW II on Russia. Just like I dont believe that we would have ever dropped it on Germany. Why ? Because I believe that all Western European civillizations have a base level amount of respect and realization that we are all sprung from the same families. Call me stupid, but I believe that all Western Europeans still retain what before Verdun was known as chivallry and that we excercise it amongst each other. We used nukes against Japan but there is a different essence to Asia historically than there is to Western Civillization.
Having really stirred the pot because I am sure you all think I am a lunatic, I will say this. I think China would have been a huge factor in a post WWII western invasion of Russia. Sino / Soviet relations have always been poor on an ideological level between the two communist states. I think China should have been factored into the discussion. I also would think twice about what the post WW II Middle East would have ended up like without a Soviet Union / Eastern European buffer zone.
There are so many variables it drives me nuts, but it is an interesting discussion.:brick

Oh no Snipe please dont misunderstand me. I dont beieve it was racial in that sense. I just believe that as Americans, we still have a basic Monroe Doctrine thing going on here. We are much less apt to use extreme force against peoples that are "like us" than those that are not. I guess you could call it racism. Maybe your right. But think about it, it would be much easier to think about nuking Japan or Cjina or Vietnam than it would to nuke Germany or England or even...............God forbid I have to say it...............I dont want to....................ok ok ok.................than to nuke France ! There ok I said it.